Previous gastric banding increases morbidity and gastric leaks after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for obesity.

GOAL: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is performed in certain circumstances after failure of gastric banding. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of first-line gastric banding on the morbidity associated with secondary LSG for obesity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The case records of 102 consecutive patients undergoing LSG were studied retrospectively. The technique of LSG was standardized. Two groups were compared: one with patients having undergone LSG after first-line gastric banding (n = 31) and the second, with patients having undergone first-line LSG (n = 71). Endpoints were overall morbidity and intra/postoperative complications including gastric leaks consecutive to staple line disruption as well as other septic or hemorrhagic complications. Multivariable analysis was performed to detect independent risk factors for morbidity. RESULTS: Overall morbidity was significantly higher in patients having undergone LSG after first-line gastric banding compared with those undergoing first-line LSG (32.2% vs. 7%, P = 0.002). Gastric leaks secondary to staple line disruption also occurred statistically significantly more often in patients with first-line gastric banding (16.1% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.043). Waiting 6 months between gastric band removal and performing LSG did not prevent the increased morbidity compared with first-line LSG. Multivariable analysis revealed that among the factors analyzed (age, gender, comorbidity, body mass index, surgeon, first-line gastric banding), the only independent risk factor for staple line disruption was first-line gastric banding with an odds ratio = 6.6 (95% confidence interval = [1.2-36.3]). CONCLUSION: Undergoing first-line gastric banding increases the risk of complications after secondary LSG. We recommend that patients who undergo LSG after a first-line gastric banding should be warned of the increased risks of morbidity or, alternatively, that LSG be performed preferentially as the initial procedure.

[Evidence based surgery has some limitations]. / La chirurgie factuelle et ses difficultés.

Evidence based medicine can be defined as the application of the best evidence in the care of a given patient. When applied to surgical practice, it appears that this concept has some limitations. To discuss these limitations, the authors made the choice to discuss the terms the original definition. Some factors are related to the paucity and the poor quality of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses in surgery, to the difficulties to appraise the surgical publications and apply the results of randomized trials to a given patient, and to bring the surgeons more willing to endorse the principles of evidence-based medicine. But all these limitations could be overcome making evidence-based surgery not to be a simple passing fad but a formal paradigm.

[Preoperative bowel preparation--is it useful?]. / La préparation colique pré-opératoire est-elle utile?

Mechanical cleansing of the colon prior to elective colorectal surgery is a dogmatically established belief in surgery. Polyethylene glycol was extensively used in the 1980's and 1990's but has been largely replaced by other laxative solutions such as sodium phosphate which are better tolerated by the patient. Evidence-based data in the surgical literature question the dogma of routine mechanical bowel cleansing (8 randomized controlled studies and 4 meta-analyses). These data show with a good level of evidence that mechanical bowel preparation is unnecessary and perhaps harmful.

[Relation between activity volume and surgeon's results: myth or reality?]. / Relation entre volume d'activité et résultats du chirurgien: mythe ou réalité?

The relationship between volume and surgical outcome seems logical, but needs to be demonstrated in the real world. A qualitative systematic review has been conducted to verify this hypothesis. Five systematic reviews and hundred original papers have been retrieved and analysed. Most of the studies were retrospective and used administrative data instead of medical charts. Moreover few studies involved a good case mix adjustment when comparing surgical units or individual surgeons. These methodological flaws do not allow any evidence based conclusions. Even though a positive relationship is suggested for surgical units, the relationship between volume and outcome was however less obvious for an individual surgeon. There is some evidence that the relationship varied greatly according to the specialty or the procedure evaluated. A new approach based on predictive scores comparing expected versus observed outcomes is mandatory and seems to be the best way to assess objectively the relationship between surgical volume and outcomes.